FY07-09 proposal 199402600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Umatilla

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: Technical and Scientific Background: Decline in abundance of Pacific lamprey is recognized as one of the key anadromous fish problems in the Columbia basin. The proposed work is directed at developing self-sustaining lamprey populations. The proposal addresses this problem by attempting to better understand factors impeding upstream migration of adults. The sponsors need to explain why they believe that conditions in the upstream migration corridor in the Umatilla are the major factors limiting adult lamprey abundance rather than passage at the mainstem dams. The proposal would be improved by more background material on possible passage problems for lamprey in the Umatilla watershed (e.g., number of dams, descriptions, etc). If mainstem passage is the principle cause of low adult abundances then improvements in the migration corridor in the Umatilla Basin may have little impact on adult returns. The literature review is adequate but the cited references to the sea lamprey may not be relevant. Alternative hypotheses concerning factors affecting survival should be mentioned, especially estuarine and marine factors. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal directly addresses biological objectives and specific action items related to lamprey restoration in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan, the biological objectives in the Fish and Wildlife Program, and the 2000 Biological Opinion. The proposal also addresses uncertainties identified by the Lamprey technical work group. Relationships to other project: The tie-in with other lamprey projects is mentioned, especially with 20070220 (stress/cDNA microarrays). However, we question whether there is a potential benefit to fish from that particular aspect of the project. The potential application in a restoration initiative is not clear. Two in-basin M&E projects collect data said to support the proposed project. The project is said to provide useful information on lamprey migration to a BPA funded project seeking to increase flows in the Umatilla. The proposal seems somewhat in isolation from non-lamprey projects and might benefit from collaboration with people working on stream habitat. We found no mention of the Lamprey Workshop sponsored by CRITFC in 2004. This is a serious omission from this proposal. To ensure there is maximum return from its investment in restoration of Pacific lamprey, the Council should insist that proponents of lamprey studies throughout the Basin spell out the nature of their cooperation with the others. This could be accomplished through the Columbia Basin Lamprey Technical Working Group mentioned in proposal 200201600. This proposal makes no mention of lamprey work being conducted elsewhere, as for example in the Deschutes River (Proposal 200201600). There is a question whether full information exchanges have continued. Agreements should be designed to maximize information obtained from the studies by apportioning responsibilities among the funded lamprey projects. Project history: Valuable information appears to have been gained since the project’s inception; however, some accomplishments are poorly presented. For example, it is not clear whether the sponsors believe that outplanting of lamprey has been effective or not. The description of past work is often sketchy and conclusions sometimes were not provided. The sponsors need to provide a bottom line, a comprehensive synthesis, a summary of what has been learned since project inception. Based upon past work, the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed should clearly and logically be identified. For example: What has been learned about stock genetics that is relevant to the project? What conclusions can be drawn from the pheromone studies about migratory cues and how is it relevant to lamprey restoration in the Umatilla? We are skeptical that these have potential for practical application in restoration initiatives. Objectives: Objectives relating to population monitoring and stream surveys should have measurable benefits for long-term databases. Research on olfactory cues is more exploratory, and results are less tangible for the program unless some form of attractant can be developed. Most of the objectives are directed at issues related to lamprey recovery and are necessary for M&E. Objective 2, relating to pheromones is poorly justified and its relevance to lamprey recovery is unclear. The sponsors have been conducting pheromone research since 2000 but they have not presented any firm conclusions that make clear how the work might benefit lamprey restoration in the Columbia Basin. Here, the problems are exactly opposite those in the Great lakes, where the objective is to reduce lamprey populations. Pheromones have been useful there in attracting lamprey to their deaths. Ecological factors such as reduced flow, increased temperature, and mortality and passage problems at mainstem dams may be far more important in explaining the low adult return than an insufficient concentration of pheromone attractors. Stimulating migration up the Umatilla by introducing pheromones into the water, if it can be done successfully -- a large unknown -- may have little impact on adult returns to the river unless other major causes of adult declines are addressed first. Objective 2 should be eliminated. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods used are adequate for investigation of freshwater factors that may be limiting lamprey in the basin. Radio-tagging and trapping designs are reasonable. Statistical aspects of estimating larval lamprey in the sediments may be questioned, see 200001400 (lamprey in Cedar Creek WA). Extrapolation of trap counts to number per square meter in the Umatilla River is a stretch given the mosaic of habitats in the river. For others, such as the in-river behavioral studies, description of the design and methods is insufficient. In the radio-telemetry study it is unclear how the two hypotheses will be tested and how they can be distinguished from each other. The use of radio tracking addresses the objective of improving upstream passage for adult lamprey, and assumes that solutions have already been devised ("low elevation ramp"). Would it not be reasonable to assign high priority to fitting the obstacles identified in year 1 with these ramps and shifting the objective of the radio tracking study to evaluating the effectiveness of these ramps? Why wait? Monitoring and evaluation: M&E is a part of the proposal. The adequacy of some of the methods such as those used to assess adult abundance is questionable. The confidence interval for the 2000 estimate of outmigrant abundance using screw traps is so large as to render the estimate virtually meaningless. It will be difficult to link tributary monitoring to mainstem, estuarine, and marine sampling but this may be necessary to determine ultimate success/failure of the recovery program. Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel: The facilities seem adequate, and the personnel are qualified. Information Transfer: Plans for information transfer are adequate, and the proponents have a good track record for publications in the peer-reviewed literature. Annual reports and publications are mentioned, but there is no discussion of the disposition of meta-data. Benefit to focal and non-focal species: The project could result in long-term benefits for lamprey if the deficiencies are dealt with adequately. It appears from results so far, that the greatest benefit is to be expected from improvements in passage. Habitat is not limiting, they say. Obstacles to passage have been identified in the mainstem and the Umatilla itself. The proposal should discuss the effect of lamprey sampling (trapping, electroshocking) on salmonids, non-salmonids and other biota. Summary: Overall this is a comprehensive project generating good data on lamprey ecology in freshwater. However as with other anadromous species the estuarine and marine phases are probably as important. The proposal would benefit from more explanation of the success or failure of outplanting. Has this been attempted elsewhere? Have any results been published? Other questions relate to statistical methods and degree of coordination, overlap, and consistency with other lamprey projects in the Columbia River Basin, as noted above. The proposal should focus upon the central purpose of the proposed work, which is to increase adult returns. Major causes of low return rates of adults apparently are mortality and passage problems at mainstem dams, possible low flows and high temperatures, and low survival to the outmigrant stage, as indicated by large reductions in trapped outmigrants despite increasing larval abundance. The sponsors should focus their work on these problems. Pheromone research (Objective 2) should be discontinued as it is less relevant to the major problems at this point in time. A possibly critical issue seems to be survival from the larval to the outmigrant stage. The sponsors should carefully investigate the causes for low larval survival. Outmigrant abundance must be accurately determined. Every effort should be made to significantly increase flows in the lower river during the period of adult migration. Further discussion of this hindrance to passage seems necessary. It seems possible that monitoring upstream migrations and improving passage through barriers could improve upstream passage, but if low larval survival rates continue, any increase in abundance would still be limited by the low number of adults appearing at the river mouth. The sponsors seem to be working under the assumption that lamprey do not home with fidelity (the small study in the lower Columbia cannot be considered to be conclusive) and that their genetic structure is not substantively different from other stocks (this topic needs a more thorough discussion). The sponsors do not present a convincing case in support of this assumption in the proposal, other than to record the fact that lamprey collected at John Day Dam did spawn successfully in the Umatilla. More thought should be given to this subject, particularly since other lamprey projects are being funded to conduct genetic analysis of lamprey. The focus in this proposal upon bile salts and pheromones seems questionable at best, and to be primarily of academic interest, particularly given the willingness to collect lamprey at a mainstem dam for introduction into the Umatilla. To date, obstacles to passage seem to explain the low abundance of lamprey in the Columbia Basin. 1. The past history should be revised. It is presented by year and not by objective. No supporting graphs or tables for the yearly data. Temporal trends are needed. 2. Examination of effects of dams on migrations of adults should focus upon questions such as: What are the physical characteristics of impediments to lamprey passage? Aspects of lamprey behavior and bioengineering need to be incorporated to identify what the actual passage problem(s) is or are. 3. Sponsors should refer to the ISRP programmatic comments on lamprey and respond to them.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The ISRP has previously called attention to the need for oversight of work on lamprey in the Columbia Basin. There has been an effort in this direction (apparently through the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority) by appointment of a Columbia Basin Lamprey Technical Working Group. However, it is clear that the Technical Working Group has served as a medium of information exchange, rather than as a coordinating body to assign tasks and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, as was intended by the ISRP recommendation. The sponsors are reluctant to accept the concept of a "generic" applied study on lamprey on their watershed (or somewhere else in the Basin) that might provide results that are widely applicable. Watershed-specific issues, such as identification of specific obstacles to passage, are no doubt important but a concerted, well-coordinated, and cooperative effort would provide better scientific results with respect to identification of physical and biological characteristics of impediments to passage. The basic question is “Does the region need a lamprey project with similar goals, objectives and tasks in every subbasin?” If this criterion is applied to the Umatilla Basin, the question becomes “What is the innovative work that is being done that is expected to be applicable basinwide, or that requires tasks specific to the Umatilla?” The ISRP had asked for a revision of the Project History section, organized by objectives. This was not supplied. We remain convinced that the sponsors themselves would benefit from a progress report that would relate the particular aspects of the life history and behavior of lamprey in the Umatilla River. The sponsors agree with the ISRP that if mainstem passage is not improved, major increases in adult abundance in the Umatilla River may not occur. The question to be addressed by this proposal then is, to what degree factors within the Umatilla Basin might still limit abundance even if mainstem passage is improved. Direction for efforts of this project would be improved by identification of potential or possible limiting factors in the Umatilla Basin, and a focus on those that are determined to be likely to have the greatest effect on abundance. It is difficult to reconcile the sponsor's statement, made later in their response, that habitat is not a limiting factor for lamprey in the Umatilla River with comments such as: “The issue of dewatering is serious and the low head diversion dams that provide the water may also inhibit migration.” The Abstract of this proposal provides a useful summary of objectives for work in the Umatilla River: “In addition to increasing the abundance of larval lamprey in the subbasin, key components are to establish that more adult lamprey are returning to the Umatilla Subbasin, and that they are able to reach historical spawning areas. Consequently, the project objectives are: (1) estimate the numbers of adult lampreys entering the Umatilla Subbasin; (2) investigate the olfactory cues lamprey use to orient in the Umatilla Subbasin; (3) monitor passage success to spawning areas; (4) develop structures to improve passage success; (5) increase larval abundance in the Umatilla River by continuing to outplant adult lamprey; (6) monitor larval population trends in the Umatilla River by conducting electrofishing surveys, and (7) estimate the numbers of juvenile lampreys migrating out of the Umatilla River.” ISRP requested information on annual reports and meta-data. The sponsors did not respond adequately to this request. They refer to reports with results but do not summarize or give citations to many of the reports. The ISRP concludes that benefits in terms of potential for improved abundance of Pacific lamprey in the Umatilla Basin are likely to accrue from portions of this project, modified according to the following recommendation. Fundable in part, as listed below: Objectives 1, 3, 4 (except Task 2d), 5, and 6. Emphasis of the work should be placed on: 1. Enumeration of upstream migration of adults in the Umatilla River. The proposed radio tracking approach deserves more emphasis. Sponsors should obtain advice from a statistician in the design and analysis of their enumeration efforts. 2. Identification of barriers to adult migration within the river. The sponsors should determine particular features of these barriers that inhibit or prevent passage and consider the possibility that if mainstem passage is the principle cause of low adult abundances, then improvements in the migration corridor in the Umatilla Basin may have little impact on adult returns. 3. Outmigrant abundance must be accurately determined. With the low numbers expected, increased effort will be required beyond what is described in the proposal, with a rigorous statistical design applied to the sampling of juveniles, with the assistance of a statistician. 4. Quantify effects of river operations, i.e., pumping of water from the Columbia River and its subsequent distribution, on abundance and success of passage of lamprey upstream and downstream. (Quantify with river flow and lamprey counts.) (Note the ISRP comments on other proposals for work in the Umatilla River, specifically 198343600, in which we recommend incorporation of all projects into a package we refer to as the Umatilla Initiative, which should be established to evaluate the effects on fish abundance of restoration of flows in the river, other habitat improvement measures, and the hatchery. Restoration of flow would seem to be an obvious habitat improvement measure that ought to affect abundance of lamprey.) 5. Carefully investigate the causes for low larval survival. Likely suspects include fluctuations or reductions in flow brought about by irrigation removals or other operations, leading to stranding and compaction of substrate in which lamprey are located. Investigate possibilities for modification of operations, if warranted. Not Fundable: We view objective 2 as being unlikely to reveal measures that might lead to increases in lamprey abundance. Our conclusion is that further studies of stress steroids, larval extracts, sex pheromones, bile salts, synthetic compounds or the like, are not, at this time, fruitful areas of pursuit and are not likely to suggest measures that might lead to increases in lamprey abundance. This work cannot be justified given current knowledge (or the lack of it) of up-river lamprey populations.